Contending that its driver-training rule does not need to
include any actual training in how to drive a commercial motor vehicle, the
FMCSA “missed the boat” with one of its arguments and ignored its own evidence,
according to OOIDA’s legal team.

The arguments from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration were in response to a suit filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals
by OOIDA and two other organizations. The suit asks the court to order the
FMCSA to go back to the drawing board and develop an entry-level
driver-training rule that includes requirements for actual training behind the
wheel.

In their defense, officials with the federal agency said in
their response to the suit that the driver-training rule was only one part of a
six-part strategy to improve safety on America’s highways. However, none of the
other five parts include any actual training of drivers. They also contend that
the FMCSA, and all federal agencies, have discretion in implementing solutions
to problems under their jurisdiction.

“They missed the boat with that,” said Attorney Paul Cullen
Jr. of The Cullen Law Firm in Washington, DC.

“It is true that under their administrative duties an agency
can address issues in many ways, but Congress didn’t say ‘under your
administrative duties.’ ”

Cullen said in OOIDA’s response to the FMCSA’s claims –
which was filed yesterday, June 6 – the association pointed to the specific
mandate from Congress regarding the entry-level driver training rule. In 1991,
Congress included the training mandate in legislation known as ISTEA, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The mandate gave the federal
agency 24 months to come up with a training rule.

Thirteen years later, in May 2004, the FMCSA published its
driver-training rule. It requires a total of 10 hours of training on four
non-driving topics: driver qualifications; hours of service; driver wellness;
and whistleblower protection.

Cullen said not only does the specific mandate from Congress
supercede the FMCSA’s usual operating routine, but that the four areas of
instruction required by the training rule ignore the agency’s own data and
evidence.

“The agency can’t ignore the evidence in the record,” Cullen
told Land Line on June 6.

That evidence shows that 69 percent of drivers are not
adequately trained in how to actually operate a commercial motor vehicle. It
also includes a cost-benefit analysis that shows increased training behind the
wheel would save more money than it would cost in the long run.

The next step in the legal action is for the three-judge
panel of the Appeals Court to set a date to hear oral arguments. Cullen said he
expects that to happen some time this fall, with each side likely having an
hour or less to present its case.